Bridgeton pioneer., 1887-10-06
Tuesday Afternoon.
Court convened at 2 o'clock.

Court convened at 2 o'clock.
Anticipating no cases of eXtraordi-
nary interest, or even of ordinary
interest, the usual habitues of the
spectators benches in the Court room
did not assemble in very large num-
bers. Outside of persons having busi-
ness before the Court, and a few of
their witnesses, there were not a dozen
persons in the seats when the hour of
two arrived.
The jury which had been empanelled
was called and placed in the box as the
clock struck two; the jury were sworn
after the entrance of lawyer Alvord.
The case to be tried was the Supreme
Court issue of John H. Pratt, ct al, VS..
Charles James, ct al, heirs of David
James, deceased, late of Lands town
ship, and was an action brought
against heirs and devisees. The plain
tiff resided in New York, and one of
the heirs defendant was an infant.
Henry Brown was the first witness
called. He was a book-keeper for
Pratt & Farmer, who are really the
plaintiffs in this case. David James in
his lifetime transacted business with
Pratt & Farmer; he died about year
ago. The amount for which judgment
was sought is $34z31. The defendants
in the case, excepting the infant, have
allowed judgment to be entered by
default.
Mr.. Alvord, the lawyer, gave testi-
mony as to the case, showing that
William z. James was the infant de-
fendant and the son of David James,
deceased. The decedent left a farm of
fifty acres in Lands township, which
was encumbered with mortgage of
$1,000. The same has been sold twice
for taxes, and there is no personal
estate. The lawyer stated that the
personal estate was insolvent. There
was no defence, and the jury was in
structed to find verdict for the plain
tiff for the whole amonnt with interest
up to the first Tuesday in next month,
the date of the session of the Supreme
Court.
The jury returned verdict of
$572. 35. This concluded the business
for the day, and Court adjourned until
this morning.
Wednesday Morning.
Court was opened this morning at
precisely 10 o'clock. The enames of the
constables in attendance were called,
and the business of the Court began,
the calling of the panel of the petit
jurors being the first.
Judge Reed had taken his seat some
time before the opening of Court, and
the three associate judges took their
seats promptly as the clock struck ten.
A jury was empanelled in the first case
on the list of Supreme Court issues
that of J. Howard Willets VS.. Frank j.
Grace, ct AL Messrs. Potter q Nixon
for plaintiff and David J. Pancoast,
ESQ.,, for defendant.
This was an ''oyster case," commonly
speaking. and at the beginning gave
promise of being an important one.
There are supposed to be at least 5000
people whose livelihood is closely con-
nected with the oyster catching busi-
ness. The catch in this vicinity last
year amounted to one and a half mil
lions of dollars, consequently nearly
all cases affecting this business which
are brought before our Courts attract
wide attention. Col. Potter, in his
opening of the case, showed how the
business had grown, even in the mem
ory of the present generation, from an
insignificant one of picking up a few
oysters in canoes, to its present i'm
mense proportions.
The case was this, that Col. J. How
ard Willets and Captain Loper had
gone into the business of making q
shell bed on which to plant and raise
oysters. He selected and staked out a
piece of ground in Middle Townshipin
Cape May County, where he in 1884
had Captain Henderson to plant shells
ON which oysters were raised. The
oysters made prodigous growth. In
May 1886, Capt. Richard Chester and
Capt. Frank j. Grace in their oyster
boat the "Annie r. Ludlam" were OBJ
served to take a deck load of oysters
from those beds which they planted on
their own grounds with other oysters
al, tbo.- l,nd ri0uClxr to o., from,